Sri C.N.Murthy

1

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL­CUM­ II ADDL. 

DISTRICT COURT (MACT) :: AMALAPURAM: Present: Sri C.N.Murthy II Addl. District Judge, Monday, the 11th day of April, 2022

MVOP NO.65/2016

Between: 1.Kandregula Satyavathi, W/o.late Ranga Rao, Age 50 years, Housewife, R/o.D.No.5­48/2, Ramaraopeta, Kodurupadu, Allavaram Mandal.

2.Kadali Satyakumari @ Sakkubai, W/o.Venkateswara Rao , Age 33 years, House wife, R/o.D.No.2­9/1, Atchiyyagaripalem, Godi, Allavaram Mandal.

3.Kudupudi Adilakshmi, W/o.Trimurthulu @ Murthy, Age 30 years, House wife, R/o.Godi, Allavaram Mandal.

4.Kandregula Sneetha, D/o.late Rangarao, Age 27 years, R/o.D.No.5­48/2, Ramaraopeta,

Kodurupadu, Allavaram Mandal. ..Petitioners.

AND 1.Kandregula Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Narayana Murthy, Age 34 years, R/o.Badilanka, H/o.Lutukurru, Mamidikuduru Mandal.

2.Alluri Padmavathi, W/o.A.V.Srihari Rao, D.No.1­107­7, Flat No.504, Ozone Apartments, M.V.P.Colony, Visakhapatnam.

3. M/s.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Claims Manager, CBM Compound,

VIP Road, Visakhapatnam ..Respondents.

This petition is coming on 11­4­2022 for consideration before me in the presence of Sri N.Ch.Venkateswara Rao,Advocate for petitioners and of

Sri N.Suryanarayana Murthy, Advocate for 3rd respondent, respondent Nos.1 2 and 2 remained exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a petition filed by the petitioners under Section 166(c) of Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 455 of Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/­on account of death of Kandregula Ranga rao in a motor vehicle accident.

2.The brief averments of the petition are that Kandregula Ranga Rao (herein after referred as deceased) was aged 53 years by the date of accident.

He was hale and healthy earning Rs.8,000/­ per month by doing coolie works and also as a watchman of coconut garden of Gubbala Satyanarayana of

Kodurupadu village, Allavaram Mandal. The 1st petitioner is the wife of the deceased. Petitioners 2 and 3 are his married daughters. The 4th petitioner is unmarried daughter. On 10­4­2016 the deceased was proceeding on his cycle from his house towards Gubbalavaripalem at about 9­15 a.m. At that time the 1st respondent who is the driver of the offending vehicle Maruthi

Ritz bearing No.AP31 DD 6939 drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the cycle of the deceased near Desakodu bridge, Kodurupadu village, Allavaram Mandal. As a result the deceased fell down and sustained severe head injury. Initially he was shifted to KIMS Hospital, Amalapuram and in turn to Government General Hospital, Kakinada where he died on 14­ 6­2016. It is pleaded that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligence of the 1st respondent in driving the crime vehicle. The 2nd respondent is the owner and the 3rd respondent is the insurer of the crime vehicle. Thus, they are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

3

It is pleaded that the 1st petitioner lost her conjugal happiness. The 4th petitioner lost her marriage prospects. All the petitioners lost financial and moral support. In the circumstances, the petitioners claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/­ from the respondents jointly and severally with interest.

3.It is seen from the record that respondents 1 and 2 remained exparte.

The 3rd respondent filed a counter denying averments made in the petition.

The 3rd respondent denied the age, occupation and income of the deceased.

It also sought protection under Section 147 and 149 of M.V.Act The 3rd respondent pleaded that the 1st respondent driver of the crime vehicle was not holding driving license at the time of alleged accident and that the 2nd respondent willfully handed over the vehicle and thereby contravened the rules and provision under M.V.Act. The the 3rd respondent has no liability to pay the compensation. In addition it is pleaded that the interest and compensation claimed is excessive.

In these circumstances, it was prayed to dismiss the petition.

4.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are settled for trial:

1. Whether the deceased Kandregula Ranga Rao died due to a motor accident on 10­4­2016 at about 9­15 a.m. near Desakodu bridge, Kodurupadu village of Allavaram Mandal due to rash and negligent driving of Car bearing Regd. No.AP 31 DD 6939 driven by the 1st respondent ?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the compensation as prayed for, from all the respondents jointly and severally ?

3. To what relief?

5.It is noted that the 3rd respondent Insurance Company filed a petition

I.A.No.629/2021 under Section 170 of M.V.Act which was allowed by this 4

Court to raise all the defences available to the owner under the provisions of

Motor Vehicles Act.

6. On behalf of petitioners, three witnesses are examined and Ex.A1 to

Ex.A5 were marked. On behalf of contesting 3rd respondent, Ex.B1 insurance policy was marked. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of 3rd respondent.

7.Heard.

8.Petitioners evidence :

P.W.1 Kandregula Satyavathi is the wife of the deceased Rangarao.

She filed her chief­examination affidavit mostly reiterating the contents in the main petition through her Ex.A1 to A5 are marked.

Ex.A1 is Attested copy of altered F.I.R. in Cr.No.45/2016 of Allavaram

Police Station.

Ex.A2 is attested copy of inquest report.

Ex.A3 is attested copy of post­mortem report.

Ex.A4 is attested copy of M.V.Inspector's report.

Ex.A5 is certified copy of charge sheet in Cr.No.45/2016 of Allavaram

Police Station.

In her cross­examination, P.W.1 deposed that her husband used to attend cooli work and his annual income is Rs.15,000/­. She denied the suggestion that her husband was aged more than 60 years . She also stated that at the time of accident her husband was carrying paddy bag on his bicycle. P.W.1 further deposed that all the daughters are residing at their in­ laws house.

5

P.W.2 Teku Durga is an eye witness to the accident. She filed her chief­examination affidavit supporting the case of the petitioners stating about the accident that occurred on 10­4­2016. At the time of accident the 1st respondent driver of the Maruthi Car drove it in rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the cycle of the deceased. The deceased fell down and sustained severe head injury. He was shifted to hospital and

P.W.2 came to know about the death of the deceased. In her cross­ examination P.W.2 deposed that the car dashed the cycle from its behind.

She does not know the details of owner and driver of the car. P.W.2 does not know the date of the accident. P.W.2 maintained that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the car driver.

P.W.3 Kudupudi Adilakshmi is the 3rd petitioner in this case. She is one of the daughters of the deceased. She filed her chief­examination affidavit almost reiterating the contents in the main petition. It is stated that after filing the petition the marriage of 4th petitioner was performed by borrowing money from private money lenders. In her cross­examination she deposed that at the time of death, he father was aged about 52 or 53 years.

She also stated that the annual income of her father is shown as Rs.18,000/­ in the house hold card.

As already stated on behalf of 3rd respondent, Ex.B1 insurance policy of the offending vehicle was marked by consent.

9.Issue No.1 

It is the case of the petitioners that the deceased was working as a coolie and aged agbout 53 years by the date of accident earning Rs.8,000/­ per month. On the date of accident, the 1st respondent drove the offending 6 vehicle Maruthi Ritz Car bearing No.AP31 DD 6939 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the cycle on which the deceased was travelling. The deceased sustained injuries and later he died in the hospital. To substantiate their version, the petitioners got examined the direct eye witness P.W.2.

P.W.2 deposed about manner in which the accident took place. Nothing useful is elicited in her cross­examination in support of the defence. P.W.2 withstood the test of cross­examination and stated that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent. The petitioners also got filed documents filed in support of the case of the petitioner. Ex.A1 is the F.I.R. initially registered under Section 337 IPC in Cr.No.45/2016. The complaint was lodged at the instance of the brother of the deceased. After death of deceased, F.I.R. was altered to Section 304­A IPC. This is the earliest document in which registration number of the vehicle and other details are mentioned. Ex.A2 is inquest report in which inquestdars opined that the cause of death is due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent at the time of accident. Ex.A3 is post­mortem report of the deceased. The cause of death is shown as a result of head injury vide Ex.A2 inquest report and Ex.A3 post­mortem report. The age of deceased was noted

as 54 years. Ex.A4 M.V. Inspector's report reveals that the accident was not

due to any mechanical defects in the vehicle. In the absence of the any mechanical defects, it can be presumed that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent. Apart from that

Ex.A5 charge sheet was filed against the 1st respondent making him responsible for the accident. It is noted that as per the charge­sheet the accused had valid driving license which is valid upto 21­4­2018. The 7 accident occurred on 10­4­2016. Thus, a conjoint reading of evidence direct witness P.W.2 and documents filed by petitioners in particular Ex.A1 F.I.R,

Ex.A4 M.V.Inspector's report, Ex.A5 charge­sheet prima­facie indicates rash and negligence on the part of the 1st respondent in driving the vehicle. As per judicial precedents filing charge­sheet itself is prima­facie sufficient evidence of negligence for the purpose of claim under Section 166 of M.V.Act

(The New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Pazhaniammal and others 2012

ACJ 1370). Hence, it is held that the accident occured due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent at the time of accident. Thus, petitioners established the nexus between the accident and resulting death of the deceased Kandregula Ranga Rao. Accordingly, this issue is answered.

11.Issue No.2 :

Coming to the income aspect it is the case of the petitioners that the deceased was working as a cooli earning Rs.8,000/­ p.m. and also working as watchman at the Coconut garden of Gubbala Satyanarayana of Kodurupadu village. The said Gubbala Satyanarayana was not examined by the petitioner in proof of this aspect. No other material is placed by the petitioners in proof of income of the deceased. As already stated age of the accused is noted as 54 years in the post­mortem report as well is in the inquest report. In the absence of any other material this Tribunal is inclined to fix the age of the deceased at 54 years. Considering the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2016; the notional income of the deceased is arrived at Rs.4,000/­ per month. Thus, the annual income of the deceased is as follows :

Rs.4,000 x 12 = Rs.48,000 8

As per observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National

Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors (2017 ACT 2700)

this court is inclined to grant future prospects at the rate of 10% in view of the fact that the deceased is aged 54 years. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Para­61(iv) in Pranay Sethi case held as follows :

“In case the deceased was self­employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.”

Thus, 10% of established income future prospects is : 

Rs.48,000 x 10% = Rs.4,800/­

Therefore, total annual income along with future prospects is as follows :

 Rs.48,000+ Rs.4,800 = Rs.52,800

As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

“Sarala Verma & Others vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Another” (2009 ACJ

1298), the personal expenses of the deceased at the rate of 1/3rd has to be deducted from his earnings since the total number of family members depending on him are two. The 1st petitioner is wife and the 4th petitioner is unmarried daughter of deceased at the time of accident. Therefore, 1/3rd amount from annual income of the deceased has to be deducted. As such the calculation is as follows :

Rs.52,800/­ x 1/3 = Rs.17,600/­ 9

Rs.52,800/­ ­  Rs.17,600/­ = Rs.35,200/­

Since the deceased is aged about 54 years at the time of accident, the relevant multiplier applicable is 11 as per the observations of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the case of “Sarala Verma & Others vs Delhi Transport

Corp.& Another” (2009 ACJ 1298). Therefore, the calculation is as follows :

Rs.35,200/­ x 11 = Rs.3,87,200/­

The 1st petitioner is entitled for compensation under conventional heads namely loss of estate, loss of consortium for 1st petitioner and funeral expenses at the rate of Rs.15,000/­, Rs.40,000/­ and Rs.15,000/­ respectively (Rs.15,000/­ + Rs.40,000/­ + Rs.15,000/­ = Rs.70,000/­).

It is an admitted fact that after the accident the deceased was alive for few days. Initially he as treated at KIMS Hospital, Amalapuram and from there he was shifted to Government General Hospital, Kakinada. These facts are not disputed. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant Rs.10,000/­ towards medical expenses and transportation.

Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for the total compensation as follows :

(1) Compensation for loss of ...Rs. 3,87,200­00 dependency (2) Loss of estate...Rs. 15,000­00 (3) Loss of consortium...Rs. 40,000­00 (4) Funeral expenses...Rs. 15,000­00 (6) Medical expenses and transportation...Rs. 10,000­00 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

Total ...Rs. 4,67,200­00

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ 10

Thus, the total compensation amount is Rs.4,67,200 in the facts and circumstances of the case. Admittedly, after filing of the petition, the 4th petitioner was also married. Thus, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the 1st petitioner alone is entitled for receiving compensation. Therefore, the claim against the petitioners 2 to 4 is dismissed.

The petitioners established the negligence on the part of the 1st respondent driver and the vicarious liability on the part of the 2nd respondent owner. Under Ex.B1 insurance policy, the offending vehicle is validly insured with the 3rd respondent. Thus, the liability of respondents 1 to 3 is established.

In view of the above discussion, it is held that all respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the 1st petitioner.

Accordingly, this issue is answered.

Issue No.3:

12.In the result, petition is partly allowed with proportionate costs awarding Rs.4,67,200/­ (Rupees Four lakhs sixty seven thousand two hundred only) with interest at 7.5 % p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit. The respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount within one month from the date of this order.

 On such deposit ­

(i) the 1st petitioner is entitled to Rs.4,67,200/­ (Rupees Four lakhs sixty seven thousand two hundred only ) out of which she is permitted to withdraw Rs.3,67,200/­ (Rupees Three lakhs sixty seven thousand two hundred only) with costs; and the remaining amount of Rs.1,00,000/­ 11 (Rupees One lakh only) with interest shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalised bank for a period of one year.

(ii) the petition against petitioners 2 to 4 is dismissed.

(iii) Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/­.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this 11th day of April, 2022.

II ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE,

AMALAPURAM.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined

For Petitioners:For 3rd Respondent:

P.W.1 : Kandregula Satyavathi P.W.2 : Teku Durga Devi P.W.3 : Kudupudi Adilakshmi Documents marked

For Petitioners:

Ex.A1 : Attested copy of F.I.R. in Cr.No.45/2016 of Allavaram P.S. Ex.A2 : Attested copy of Inquest report. Ex.A3 : Attested copy of Postmortem report. Ex.A4 : Attested copy of M.V.Inspector’s report. Ex.A5 : Attested copy of charge­sheet in Cr.No.45/2016 of Allavaram P.S.

For 3rd respondent :

Ex.B1 : Copy of Insurance policy.

II. A.D.J. 

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL­CUM­ II ADDL. 

DISTRICT COURT (MACT) :: AMALAPURAM: Present: Sri C.N.Murthy II Addl. District Judge, Monday, the 11th day of April, 2022

MVOP NO.65/2016

Between: 1.Kandregula Satyavathi, W/o.late Ranga Rao, Age 50 years, Housewife, R/o.D.No.5­48/2, Ramaraopeta, Kodurupadu, Allavaram Mandal.

2.Kadali Satyakumari @ Sakkubai, W/o.Venkateswara Rao , Age 33 years, House wife, R/o.D.No.2­9/1, Atchiyyagaripalem, Godi, Allavaram Mandal.

3.Kudupudi Adilakshmi, W/o.Trimurthulu @ Murthy, Age 30 years, House wife, R/o.Godi, Allavaram Mandal.

4.Kandregula Sneetha, D/o.late Rangarao, Age 27 years, R/o.D.No.5­48/2, Ramaraopeta,

Kodurupadu, Allavaram Mandal. ..Petitioners.

AND 1.Kandregula Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Narayana Murthy, Age 34 years, R/o.Badilanka, H/o.Lutukurru, Mamidikuduru Mandal.

2.Alluri Padmavathi, W/o.A.V.Srihari Rao, D.No.1­107­7, Flat No.504, Ozone Apartments, M.V.P.Colony, Visakhapatnam.

3. M/s.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Claims Manager, CBM Compound,

VIP Road, Visakhapatnam ..Respondents.

This is a petition filed by the petitioners under Section 166(c) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 455 of Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/­on account of death of Kandregula Ranga rao in a motor vehicle accident.

Petition presented on 10­06­2016, filed on 01­07­2016.

Cause of action for the petition arose on 10­4­2016 at about 9­15 a.m. near Desakodu bridge, Kodurupadu village, accident took place and died on 14­4­2016 due to injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent in driving the crime vehicle and at Ramaraopeta of Kodurupadu of Allavaram Mandal where the petitioners are residing which is within the jurisdiction of this court.

A court fee of Rs.4,360/­ is paid under Rule 475 of AP MV Rules. 

This petition is coming on 11­4­2022 for consideration before me in the presence of Sri N.Ch.Venkateswara Rao,Advocate for petitioners and of Sri N.Suryanarayana Murthy, Advocate for 3rd respondent, respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal doth order and decree as follows:

1) that petition be and the same is hereby partly allowed with proportionate costs awarding Rs.4,67,200/­ (Rupees Four lakhs sixty seven thousand and two hundred only) with interest at the rate of 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit.

2)  that the Respondents Nos.1 to 3 be and hereby are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount within one month from the date of this order.

3)  that on such deposit of the said amount by the respondents 1 to 3, 

i) the 1st petitioner is entitled to Rs.4,67,200/­ (Rupees Four lakhs sixty seven thousand and two hundred only) out of which she is permitted to withdraw Rs.3,67,200/­(Rupees Three lakhs sixty seven thousand and two hundred only) with costs; and the remaining amount of Rs.1,00,000/­ (Rupees One lakh only) with interest shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalised bank for a period of one year.

4 )  That the respondents 1 to 4 do also pay to the petitioners a sum of Rs.6,232­00 towards proportionate costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 11th day of April, 2022.

II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

AMALAPURAM

PARTICULARS OF COSTS

For Petitioner : For Respondent : Nil 

Vakalat : Rs. 2­00 C.F. on petition : Rs. 4,032­00 Process charges : Rs. 200­00 Advocate fees : Rs. 2,000­00 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Rs. 6,232­00 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

II ADJ 

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

EAST GODAVARI AT AMALAPURAM

Present: Sri.C.N. Murthy, II Addl. District Judge Monday, the 11th day of April, 2022

A.S.No.11 of 2016

Between: 1.Mutyala Nagamani, W/o.Demudu, Hindu, Cleaner APSRTC, 58 years, R/o.Mogalikuduru, Mamidikuduru Mandal.

2.Mutyala Apparao @ Chinna, S/o.Demudu, HIndu, Cooli, Age 28 years, R/o.Machavaram,

Ambajipeta Mandaol. ...Appellants / Petitioners

And

1.The Depot Manager, Amalapuram Depot, A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Amalaupram.

2.Singampalli Polamma styling herself as Mutyala Polamma, W/o.Tatarao, Hindu, House hold, Age 53 years, R/o.D.No.19/4/B, Machavaram, Ambajipeta Mandal. …Respondents /Respondents

On appeal against the decree and order dated 11­12­2015 in O.P.No.17/2012 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram.

Between: 1.Mutyala Nagamani 2.Mutyala Apparao @ Chinna

3.Chetla Durga Bhavani (died) ... Petitioners

and

1.The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Amalapuram 2.Singampalli Polamma styling herself as Mutyala Polamma …Respondents 

This appeal suit coming on 07­3­2022 before me in the presence of Sri S.Venkateswara Rao, M.Saibaba, Advocates for Appellants/Petitioners and Sri V.R.V.Sankaram, Advocate for 1st respondent / 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent remained exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:­ 2

// J U D G M E N T //

This is an appeal filed by the unsuccessful petitioners against the decree and order dt.11­12­2015 by the learned Senior Civil Judge,

Amalapuram in O.P.No.17/2012.

2.For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal are referred to as they are arrayed in O.P.No.17/2012.

3.The brief averments in the petition are that the 1st petitioner is the wife of Demudu who worked in APSRTC as Sramik. The petitioners 2 and 3 are their children. Demudu died intestate on 3­1­2005 leaving behind the petitioners are legal heirs. They made a claim to the respondent APSRTC

Depot Manager seeking the benefits of the deceased. It is pleaded that the petitioners are governed by Hindu Succession Act. Though there is no rival claim, the respondent APSRTC did not decide the claim of the petitioners and further directed them to obtain succession certificate in order to pay the death benefits of late Demudu. In the circumstances, the petitioner filed the petition praying to issue succession certificate in their favour.

4.As against the above the respondent APSRTC got filed a counter admitting the employment of late Mutyala Demudu as Sramik in

Amalapuram Depot and his death. It is pleaded that after the death of late

Demudu, funeral expenses of Rs.2,000/­ was paid on 4­1­2005 to Smt.

Mutyala Polamma, wife of deceased. The said Smt.Mutyala Polamma also submitted the death certificate of deceased Mutyala Demudu and claimed death benefits. After receiving that application, the respondent RTC verified the service records of deceased Mutyala Demudu. It was found that except in the bus pass, late Demudu did not mention said Smt. Mutyala Polamma as 3 wife. The 1st petitioner is shown as nominee in some other declarations. As such application of Smt. Polamma was not processed. It is pleaded that the 1st petitioner approached the respondent RTC after lapse of five years in order to claim the benefits as there are rival claimants. It is pleaded that in view of rival claimants, the respondent RTC did not process those claims.

According to the respondent, Smt. Mutyala Polamma is also necessary party to the petition. The respondent prayed to direct the petitioner to implead

Smt. Mutyala Polamma before determining the legal heirs.

5.It appears that after filing of the counter the petitioner got impleaded

Smt. Mutyala Polamma as the 2nd respondent. It is also noted that the respondent remained exparte. It is also seen from record that the 3rd petitioner died pending S.O.P. in the trial Court.

6.To substantiate their case, one witness is examined and Ex.P1 and P2 are marked. The 1st respondent did not adduce any evidence.

7.The trial Court after considering the material available on record and and on hearing both the counsel and considering the evidence, dismissed the petition.

8.Aggrieved by the findings of the trial Court, the present appeal is filed by the petitioners mainly on the following grounds :

that the 2nd respondent did not contest this case and that the record produced by the 1st respondent shows that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife and nominee.

that the trial Court ought to have seen that being an uneducated lady, the 1st petitioner has no proof of her marriage with Demudu.

4 that the observation of the trial Court that a nominee is different from legally wedded wife is not correct.

that there is no necessity to file a petition to obtain succession certificate.

that the trial court ought to have seen that the deceased Demudu mentioned the name of the 1st petitioner as wife in service record.

that the trial Court wrongly placed the burden of proof on the petitioner.

that the the trial Court ought to have seen that there is no practice of taking photos in proof of marriage at the time of marriage of late

Demudu with the 1st petitioner.

9.Heard.

10.No additional evidence is adduced by both the parties in the appeal.

12.In the course of appeal it is stated that the 2nd appellant died and there are no legal heirs. Further, the 2nd respondent Smt. Mutyala Polamma also died and that there are no legal heirs.

13.Learned counsel for the petitioner / appellant submitted that presently the 1st petitioner lost her daughter and son who are petitioners 2 and 3 in the trial Court. The rival claimant 2nd respondent Mutyala Polamma died. It was submitted that in the absence of any rival claimants, the petitioner is entitled to receive death benefits of deceased Demudu. 

14On the other hand learned counsel for 1st respondent APSRTC submitted that the petitioner did not place any material at the outset in proof of marriage between the 1st petitioner and Demudu. Learned counsel submitted that the trial Court had properly appreciated the material available 5 on record and came to a just conclusion in dismissing the S.O.P. Learned counsel therefore, prayed to dismiss the appeal.

15.In the course of arguments learned counsel for appellant submitted that efforts were made by the petitioner / appellant to know about the details of death of the rival claimant / 2nd respondent Mutyala Polamma. The

Panchayat Secretary, Machavaram issued non­availability certificate stating that the event relating to death of Mutyala Polamma was not registered.

Learned counsel further submitted that a paper publication was also made in a local daily newspaper inviting objections from the legal heirs, if any, of the deceased 2nd respondent. I have perused the publication in which it is stated that the 2nd respondent after receiving notice in the appeal went to her native place and died. Objections were invited from the legal heirs of the deceased 2nd respondent. It is seen from the docket order dt.12­4­2018 that after filing of publication, nobody came forward raising any objection. In the circumstances, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner / appellant had taken all the steps and admittedly there are no legal heirs to the deceased rival claimant. Thus, even otherwise the petitioner who is alive alone is entitled to receive the death benefits of the deceased Demudu.

16. Upon perusal of the material available on record and upon hearing the submissions of both the counsel, the following points emerge for determination in the present appeal:

1.Whether the appellant / 1st petitioner is entitled to receive succession certificate as prayed for ?

2.Whether the orders of trial Court suffers from any infirmity ?

3.To what relief ?

6

17.For the sake of convenience, being the first appellate Court, it is felt necessary to briefly discuss the evidence adduced by both parties.

18.Point No. 1 :

I have perused the material on record and admittedly there are two rival claimants seeking death benefits of deceased Demudu. Initially the petitioner / appellant filed the S.O.P. against the APSRTC only. After filing the counter stating about receiving of rival claim, Smt. Polamma the rival claimant was also impleaded. However, the rival claimant remained exparte.

The trial Court on considering the material available on record dismissed the

S.O.P. mainly on the ground that there is delay in submitting the application which is not properly explained. Further, the 1st petitioner did not submit any authenticated proof in the nature of legal heir certificate or aadhar card or ration card. It may be noted that the succession certificate if issued can be revoked subsequently in certain circumstances. Grant of succession certificate is not on par with declaring the status of a party. The scope of grant of succession certificate is very much limited. In my considered opinion it only entitles a person to receive certain benefits from the 1st respondent.

Coming to the subsequent developments in this case, the rival claimant 2nd respondent Mutyala Polamma is said to have died. The appellant filed non­ availability certificate issued by Panchayat Secretary of Machavaram. As per this document, death of Mutuyala Polamma is not registered. As a matter of caution the appellant also took steps by way of publication in local newspaper inviting objections from the legal representatives of the rival claimants of the deceased 2nd respondent Smt. Polamma. As per the docket dt.12­4­2018 no objections were received. Therefore, in the absence of any 7 rival contentions the 1st petitoner / 1st appellant is entitled to receive death benefits of deceased Demudu. In fact she is the person who submitted an application to the 1st respondent RTC seeking payment of death benefits of to her and children. Even otherwise the main contention raised by the 1st respondent RTC is that in view of rival claims they could not process the application submitted by both the persons namely 1st petitioner and 2nd respondent Polamma. Presently the rival claimant died and therefore the 1st respondent RTC will not have any objection to pay death benefits to the 1st petitioner. In other words in the absence of rival claimants, 1st petitioner / 1st appellant is entitled to receive death benefits. Aart from that it was admitted by the 1st respondent that the 1st petitioner is shown as nominee by late Demudu in other declarations. On this ground also the appellant is entitled for relief as prayed for. Accordingly, this point is held.

19.Point No.2:

The trial Court appears to have decided the case as if it is a suit for declaration observing that the 1st petitioner did not place any Aadhar Card and other documents. It may be noted that in the counter filed by the 1st respondent it is pleaded at Para­6 that 1st petitioner is shown as nominee in other declarations. Therefore, there is some basis for the 1st petitioner to claim death benefits of Demudu. As already stated the scope of succession certificate is very much limited. It appears that the trial Court did not properly appreciate the fact that the rival claimant did not choose to to contest the case. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the judgment of trial Court suffers from infirmity. Accordingly, this point is answered.

8

20.Point No.3: In the result, appeal is allowed setting aside the decree and order dt.11­12­2015 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge,

Amalapuram in O.P.No.17/2012. The Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram is hereby directed to issue succession certificate to the 1st petitioner / 1st appellant as per law. No costs.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 11th day of April 2022.

II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

AMALAPURAM

No additional oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

II A D J 

 IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

EAST GODAVARI AT AMALAPURAM

Present: Sri.C.N. Murthy, II Addl. District Judge Monday, the 11th day of April, 2022

A.S.No.11 of 2016

Between: 1.Mutyala Nagamani, W/o.Demudu, Hindu, Cleaner APSRTC, 58 years, R/o.Mogalikuduru, Mamidikuduru Mandal.

2.Mutyala Apparao @ Chinna, S/o.Demudu, HIndu, Cooli, Age 28 years, R/o.Machavaram,

Ambajipeta Mandaol. ...Appellants / Petitioners

And

1.The Depot Manager, Amalapuram Depot, A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Amalaupram.

2.Singampalli Polamma styling herself as Mutyala Polamma, W/o.Tatarao, Hindu, House hold, Age 53 years, R/o.D.No.19/4/B, Machavaram, Ambajipeta Mandal. …Respondents /Respondents

On appeal against the decree and order dated 11­12­2015 in O.P.No.17/2012 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram.

Between: 1.Mutyala Nagamani 2.Mutyala Apparao @ Chinna

3.Chetla Durga Bhavani (died) ... Petitioners

and

1.The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Amalapuram 2.Singampalli Polamma styling herself as Mutyala Polamma …Respondents 

This is an appeal filed by the unsuccessful petitioners against the decree and order dt.11­12­2015 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram in O.P.No.17/2012.

Appeal is presented on 15­2­2016 and registered on 04­3­2016.

This appeal is preferred aggrieved against the orders dt.11­12­2015 dismissing the O.P.17/2012 by the Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram which filed for issuing succession certificate. Thereon a court fee of Rs.10/­ is paid.

This appeal suit coming on 07­3­2022 before me in the presence of Sri S.Venkateswara Rao, M.Saibaba, Advocates for Appellants/Petitioners and Sri V.R.V.Sankaram, Advocate for 1st respondent / 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent remained exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered DOTH ORDER AND DECREE as follows :­ i.that appeal be and is hereby allowed ; ii.that the the judgment and decree in O.P.No.17/2012 

dt. 11­12­2015 passed by Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram is 

hereby set aside.

iii.that the Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram is hereby directed to issue succession certificate to the 1st petitioner / 1st appellant as per law.

iv.that there be no costs.

Given under my signature and seal of this Court on this the 11th day April 2022.

II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

AMALAPURAM

No costs memo is filed on either side.

II A D J

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT,

AMALAPURAM.

Present : Sri.C.N.Murthy,

II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AMALAPURAM.

Tuesday, the 12th day of April, 2022

O.P. 47 of 2019

Between: Nalli Ramesh @ Suresh, S/o.Narasimhaswamy, Christian, Age 32 years, Agriculture, D.No.2-6, Beside Pachayat Office, Dindi village, Malikipuram Mandal. …Petitioner

and

Nalli Rajini, W/o.Ramesh, Age 29 years, C/o.Deepti Ashirvada, Christian, Housewife, D.No.4-16, Kothapeta, Antervedi kara,

Sakhinetipalli Mandal. ...Respondent

This is a petition coming before me on 12-4-2022 in the presence of Sri P.V.Krishnam Raju Advocate for petitioner and the respondent set exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

// O R D E R //

This is a petition filed by the petitioner / husband praying to dissolve his marriage with the respondent under Sec.10(1)(ix) and (x) of

Divorce Act.

2.The brief averments in the petition are that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent was held on 8-8-2011 at Dindi village,

Malikipuram Mandal as per Christian rites. Out of the wedlock a son

Yeswin was born on 5-6-2012. The petitioner as well as the respondent's father worked for some time in Dubai and returned. The petitioner was suffering from stammering. It is pleaded that the respondent used to humiliate the petitioner and insult him. In several ways she expressed her dislike. She also proclaimed that she loved one Nalli Vijaya Prasad but her father performed her marriage with the petitioner against her will. She refused to have conjugal relationship with the petitioner. The respondent's brother on one occasion beat the father of the petitioner.

The respondent threatened the petitioner whenever she questioned her about her acts. It is pleaded that the petitioner left India on 3-3-2015.

In the meanwhile he came to know that the family members of respondent tied her and Nalli Vijaya Prasad to a tree. The respondent attempted to commit suicide by swallowing diabetic tablets of her mother. The pe1titioner returned to India on 10-8-2015 and took the respondent to Bhimavaram for treatment. The respondent used to behave abnormally. The respondent used to mix some tablets in cool drinks and serve to the petitioner. She stated that she wants to take revenge against him. The petitioner pleaded that he has no safety to live in the atmosphere created by the respondent. In the year 2016 the respondent cut her both hands with a blade. She caused mental agony to the petitioner. While so in the month of November 2016 respondent's father took her to his house but she harassed her father also. Unable to bear it, the respondent's father committed suicide in the year 2017.

This was not informed to the petitioner.

The petitioner pleaded that there is no marital relationship between him and respondent since November 2016. The efforts made by elders to bring back the respondent to matrimonial home became futile. It is pleaded that the respondent treated the petitioner with cruelty giving constant life threats.

In the circumstances, the petitioner filed the present petition seeking divorce.

3.It is seen from record that several opportunities were granted to the respondent to enter appearance. Inspite of the same since the respondent did not appear before the Court, she was set exparte.

4.To substantiate his case, the petitioner got examined two witnesses on his behalf. Ex.P1 to P4 were marked.

Ex.P1 is marriage wedding card

Ex.P2 is marriage photos (4 Nos)

Ex.P3 is marriage certificate dt.8-8-2011 issued by marriage

Registrar.

Ex.P4 is photostat copy of aadhar card of P.W.1.

5.The petitioner filed his chief-examination affidavit as P.W.1 reiterating the contents in the petition. P.W.2 Gonipati Raju is 3rd party to the proceedings. He filed his chief-examination affidavit supporting the case of the petitioner.

6.Heard.

7.Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the petitioner is entitled for dissolution of his marriage dt.08-08-2011 with the respondent on the grounds as alleged ?

8.Point:

I have carefully perused the material available on record and the unchallenged testimony of petitioner proves his case. The conduct of the respondent in humiliating the petitioner in the presence of others amounts to mental cruelty. It is alleged that on some occasions the respondent attempted to commit suicide and also cut her hands with blade causing much harassment and mental cruelty. These acts amounts mental cruelty on the part of the respondent. It is also alleged that the petitioner apprehends life threat from the respondent. On one occasion she mixed some tablets in cool drinks and serve it to the petitioner. Therefore, it can be said that the petitioner established cruelty on the part of the respondent. Apart from that the efforts of the mediators to bring back the respondent to matrimonial home failed. As per the available material the respondent's father took her with him in the month of November 2016. The refusal of the respondent to join the petitioner amounts to desertion. Thus, the petitioner established desertion as well as cruelty on the part of the respondent towards him.

These constitute valid grounds to grant divorce as prayed for.

Accordingly, this point is answered.

8.In the result, petition is allowed dissolving the marriage dt.08-8-2011 between the petitioner and respondent. No order as to costs.

Dictated to Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the

open Court, this the 12th day of April, 2022.

II Addl. District Judge, Amalapuram

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined.

For Petitioners:

P.W.1: Nalli Ramesh

P.W.2: Gonipati Raju Documents marked

For Petitioners:

Ex.P1 is Marriage wedding card Ex.P2 is Marriage photos (4 Nos) Ex.P3 is Marriage certificate dt.8-8-2011 issued by marriage Registrar. Ex.P4 is Photostat copy of aadhar card of P.W.1.

II A D J

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT,

AMALAPURAM.

Present : Sri.C.N.Murthy, 

II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AMALAPURAM.

Tuesday, the 12th day of April, 2022

O.P. 47 of 2019

Between: Nalli Ramesh @ Suresh, S/o.Narasimhaswamy, Christian, Age 32 years, Agriculture, D.No.2­6, Beside Pachayat Office, Dindi village, Malikipuram Mandal. …Petitioner 

and

Nalli Rajini, W/o.Ramesh, Age 29 years, C/o.Deepti Ashirvada, Christian, Housewife, D.No.4­16, Kothapeta, Antervedi kara,

Sakhinetipalli Mandal. ...Respondent 

This is a petition filed by the petitioner / husband praying to dissolve his marriage with the respondent under Sec.10(1)(ix) and (x) of Divorce Act.

Petition presented on 11­3­2019 and filed on 15­3­2019.

A fixed court fee of Rs.30/­ is paid under Art 1(iii) Sch.II of APCF and SV Act.

Cause of action for the petition arose on 8­8­2011 when the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent took place; all the dates when the petitioner was ill­treated by the respondent ; when the respondent used to give life threats to the petitioner and caused mental agony to the petitioner; when the respondent deserted the petitioner to cruelty in the hands of the respondent; when there is no possibility to reconciliation; when the petitioner and respondent last resided together at Dindi village, which is with in the jurisdiction of this Court.

This is a petition coming before me on 12­4­2022 in the presence of Sri P.V.Krishnam Raju Advocate for petitioner and the respondent set exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration, this Court doth order and decree as follows :

i) that the petition be and the same is hereby allowed dissolving the marriage dt.08­8­2011 between the petitioner and respondent.

ii) that there shall be no order as to costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court on this 12th day of April, 2022. 

II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

AMALAPURAM.

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE ::

AMALAPURAM :: E.G.DT Present:Sri.C.N. Murthy, II Addl. District Sessions Judge, Amalapuram. Tuesday the 12th th day of April, 2022

Crl.M.P.Bail No.61/2022 in C.A.No.60/2022

(C.C.No. 340/2017 of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothapeta)

Between: Juluri Murali Krishna, S/o.Rammohan Rao, Age 31 years, Hindu, R/o.D.No.10­3­12/2, Lavanya Internet Cafe, Tallmudunurupadu, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District. … Petitioner / Appellant

and

Mallidi Mastanamma, W/o.Satya narayana Reddy, Hindu, Age 47 years, Housewife, R/o.D.No.1­214, Ravulapalem village, East Godavari District. … Respondent/Complainant

This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri B.Santha Ram, Advocate for Petitioner/appellant and Addl. Public Prosecutor and this court made the following:

// O R D E R //

1.This petition is filed by Petitioner/Appellant U/sec. 389 Cr.P.C to suspend the sentence passed by learned Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Kothapeta in C.C.No. 340/2017 dt.16.3.2022.

2. Learned counsel for Petitioner/Appellant submitted that the petitioner preferred an appeal against the Judgment and conviction of the lower Court. The learned counsel prays to suspend the sentence till disposal of main appeal.

3.It was submitted that the petitioner was sentenced to undergo

Simple imprisonment for six months and also to pay compensation of

Rs.2,80,000/­ I.D.S.I for one month for the offence under Sec.138 of N.I.

Act.

4. Learned counsel submitted that compensation amount of

Rs.2,80,000/­ is not paid by the appellant/accused. The learned

J.F.C.Magistrate, Kothapeta allowed the petition in Crl.M.P.No.769/2022 for interim suspension of sentence till 13­4­2022. In the circumstances learned counsel prayed to suspend the sentence passed against the petitioner /Appellant pending main appeal. 

5. Notice of the application was given to learned Addl.PP who opposed the application.

6.Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the petitioner/Appellant is entitled for relief of suspension of sentence as prayed for ?

7.I have carefully perused the material available on record and it is seen that the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothapeta allowed the petition for interim suspension of sentence till 13­4­2022.

8.As stated earlier the petitioner preferred an appeal against the said

Judgment and it may take considerable time to dispose the main appeal.

9.In the circumstances, this court is of the opinion, that the petitioner is entitled for the relief sought for. However this court is inclined to impose conditions in view of the recent Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Surinder Singh Deswal @ Col. SS Deswal Vs. Virender

Gandhi ((2019) 11 SCC 341).

10,In the result, petition is allowed and accordingly the sentence of imprisonment passed by learned Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Kothapeta in C.C.No. 340/2017 dt.16­3­2022 shall be suspended till disposal of main appeal, upon the petitioner executing a personal bond for

Rs.10,000/­ with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothapeta and also on condition to deposit 1/4th of the compensation amount of Rs.2,80,000/­ on or before 13­06­2022 failing which the suspension of sentence stands vacated. 

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this 12th day of April, 2022.

Sd/- C.N.Murthy

II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Amalapuram. Copy to The J.F.C.Magistrate, Kothapeta The Advocate for petitioner // t.c.f.b.o.// 

Superintendent II Addl. District & Sessions Court, Amalapuram.